Small-scale fisheries in Latin America:
Management Models and Challenges
Alpina Begossi
Fisheries and Food Institute (fifo) & Capesca (lepac-preac) & cmu, (unicamp),
Brazil
[email protected]
Abstract The theme of the mare 2009 Conference, ‘Living with Uncertainty and
Adapting to Change’, is well suited to Latin American reality when thinking of
the uncertainties of fisheries and the economically poor livelihoods of people in
riverine and coastal areas. Currently, there are multiple pressures on those livelihoods, many of which come from imposed conservation restrictions by governmental environmental agencies or by industrial fishing. Artisanal fishing in Latin
America is economically important, since it contributes to about a half of national
catches for most countries, and it guarantees the subsistence and protein intake
of riverine and coastal livelihoods. In order to manage aquatic resources in Latin
America, attention to its particularities is needed, including an understanding of
the: 1) local level of communities; 2) their geographic dispersion; 3) pre-existing
local rules regarding the use of resources; 4) lack of data on aquatic resources;
5) significant body of available local ecological knowledge; and, 6) current levels
of poverty and social needs. Moreover, this study addresses the absence of data
on natural resources in most Latin American countries, and as a consequence,
the problem of detecting overfishing which has been one obstacle in the management of natural resources. Considering those aspects, different approaches to
co-management are highlighted in this study, since they are useful for the understanding of the different contexts where co-management is developed. Historical
accounts by fishermen are much needed in fisheries that lack a baseline: such
relevance increases the importance of participatory approaches in management
and the necessity to rely on the use of local knowledge. Cooperatives and Reserves
are illustrated, covering marine and freshwater systems. A Brazilian case comparing ecological-historical management processes in the Atlantic Forest coast
to Amazonian reserve movements serves to illustrate the need for a temporal
understanding of management systems. One of these reserves, the ‘Sustainable
Development Reserve’ in Brazil, is illustrated as a form to include livelihoods in
the management process. Finally, the challenges that the management fishery
resources in Latin America are faced are analyzed in this study, including the
importance of turning attractive management for the poor, taking into consideration the subtractability of managed resources, and the questionable legitimacy of
some institutions.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 7
7
29-11-2010 13:52:33
Introduction
In this study, illustrative cases of co-management are given for a set of Latin
American fisheries, ranging from ones based on local rules to ones in South and
Central America undergoing changes in institutions towards co-management.
Emphasis is placed on fisheries in the Amazon and in the Atlantic Coast in Brazil.
Special attention is given to historical contexts, where local demands have key
roles in initiatives towards conservation. Case studies illustrate and cover: a) comanagement processes; b) cooperatives; c) movements towards reserves or fishing
agreements (‘Acordos de Pesca’) with riverine Amazonian fishers; and d) methods
used to access local knowledge and local demands of coastal fishers of the Atlantic
Forest coast. The methods are applied toward understanding the use of fishery
resources and marine space, fisher behavior, and local ecological knowledge (lek).
Models of management within fisheries have often been applied without taking into account the differences between tropical and temperate systems.
One of the key differences lies in the multiple types of fishing gear employed in
tropical fisheries, including harpoons, gillnets, and a variety of different hooks,
thereby allowing multiple species to be targeted. Local fisheries in tropical areas are dispersed and formed by small local villages, most of which follow local
rules ­regarding the use of the natural environment and aquatic space. Kin ties at
both the household and community levels are important to understanding of local
rules that apply to fishing activities.
In this paper, models of co-management, local knowledge, and protected
areas are analyzed through case studies. Special attention is given to co-management techniques that take into account local rules and methods that include
a dialogue between fishers and researchers. An analysis of the background of
management in Latin America and current practices of co-management is important in order to understand the particularities of the small-scale Amazonian
riverine fisheries and of the coastal Atlantic Forest fisheries. Diverse models of comanagement exist to address concerns about overfishing and the sustainability of
small-scale fisheries, which are often pressured by large-boat industrial fisheries
and governmental restrictions on fishing activities due to adjacent protected areas.
The context of selected co-management models in Latin America is provided, focusing on protected areas but also including the applications of local
knowledge and adaptive management towards local management. Those incorporate both: 1) how dialogue between fishers and researchers, on the one hand,
and between local and scientific knowledge, on the other hand, can improve comanagement procedures and help local fishers when dealing with government
agencies; and 2) how historical contexts contribute to differences in the legitimacy
of local organizations and in co-management processes.
Efforts to determine the human-ecological, cultural and economic contexts
of the fisheries, with examples from riverine and coastal fisheries, are given
according to four methodological objectives: 1) gaining knowledge on the use of
aquatic and terrestrial natural resources (including fish, plants and terrestrial
animals) from local families within the fishery; 2) gaining knowledge on the
use of the aquatic space, accessing information about kin ties and existing rules;
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 8
29-11-2010 13:52:33
3) increasing knowledge about the behavioral dynamics of fishers including their
main targets and decision-making processes; and 4) gathering information that
exists as local knowledge on the fishery’s species and their reproductive habits,
and diet, among others. The gains in knowledge and understanding are needed in
order to comprehend the multiple tasks and scales associated with local historical
contexts that management must tackle in Latin America.
Small Scale Fisheries and Fishery Production in Latin America
The majority of fish production concerning continental catches is concentrated in
a few countries in Latin America. On the continent, about five hundred thousands
of tons/year are taken (copescal/fao 2008), ninety per cent of which is taken in
six countries: Brazil (fourty-five per cent), Mexico (eighteen per cent), Venezuela
(nine per cent), Peru (seven per cent), Argentina (six per cent), and Colombia (six
per cent). When marine catches are considered, Peru and Chile emerge as leaders:
in 2007, Peru accounted for more than nine thousand tons, and Chile four thousand tons. Marine catches have a high relative importance (in proportion to continental catches within these countries) in countries like Guatemala (sixty per cent),
Brazil (thirty-two per cent), and Colombia (twenty-four per cent). Fish consumption is extremely important in many Latin American sites; in the Amazon Basin
it can reach almost about 300 kilograms per year for certain rural populations
(copescal/fao 2008). Shrimp includes both extraction and farming (Lopes 2008).
Considering global figures, fifty-three per cent of world catches come from marine fisheries (160 mi/tons in 2006, World Bank, 2008). Fish consumption from
marine sources is still high (around sixty per cent in some areas) in rural coastal
population of the Atlantic Forest coast, in spite of some tendency of reduction
(Hanazaki and Begossi 2004; MacCord and Begossi 2006).
Artisanal fishing takes on a special value in Latin America. In Brazil it
represents about fifty-three per cent of production (seap 2007; Vasconcellos et al.
2007), but in the northern parts of the country, it may be responsible for about
seventy per cent of fish landings (Cordell 2006). In Venezuela, artisanal fishing
comprises sixty-five per cent of fish production (Rojas 2009).
Small scale fisheries in Latin America are responsible for a great deal of fish
production, but they are especially important in guaranteeing protein for most
rural people living on river banks or coastal sites. Salas et al. (2007) reported the
figure of two million tons of fish per year for all Latin American and Caribbean
fisheries. Beyond fish production, small-scale fisheries in Latin America are part
of the livelihood of rural populations, which rely on the use of a rich environment
characterized by high biodiversity. Environmental uses include the harvesting of
aquatic animals, medicinal plants, and game, among others. Small-scale fisheries
in Latin America also target subsistence and commercial species; most are commercial, at least in the sense that extra production is sold after consumption needs
are met. As currently almost, or virtually all, small-scale fisheries sell some part
of their catch, even in hidden parts of the Amazon region, the possibility of taking
part in petty commercialization is widespread.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 9
9
29-11-2010 13:52:33
Besides the typical small-scale fisheries, which include fishing for consumption and sale, the capture of ornamental fish is an extractive activity of huge
importance in the Amazon. Ornamental fisheries in the Amazon include about
150 species, but demand focuses on a few species; overfishing has already been
observed, as for the cardinal tetra (Paracheirodon axelrodi) and the discus (Symphysodon spp.) (Crampton 1999). The cardinal tetra comprises eighty per cent of
ornamental fish commercial capture in the Negro River, Amazon (Chao et al.
2001).
In spite of the economic importance of artisanal fisheries, and of the existence of important commercial species that are currently considered ‘endangered’
(such as grouper, Begossi and Silvano 2008), the management of coastal and riverine fisheries in Latin America lacks systematic information on catches, and participatory management occurs just for certain cases, such as Belizean cooperatives
and some Amazonian reserves (Begossi and Brown 2003). Management processes
have been often top-down, following international or national programs, as the
Marine Extractive Reserves developed in the last ten years in Brazil, and carried
out by the Brazilian Governmental Agency, the ibama. Such trends have reduced
the credibility of the government for fishers and have shaken the legitimacy of the
initiatives.
Co-Management Processes in Latin America
A variety of initiatives exist in Latin America for the co-management of fisheries.
Ranging from informal rules to pre-established systems of co-management, there
is a tendency towards top-down approaches in Latin America, where the State
has outlined the major rules for the processes to be followed (Begossi and Brown
2003). Considering that co-management has different meanings in different settings, a useful definition follows:
Co-management is a collaborative and participatory process of regulatory decision-making between representatives of user-groups, government
agencies, research institutions, and other stakeholders. Power sharing and
partnership are an essential part of this definition (Jentoft 2003:3).
As such, co-management is part of a Local Management Systems (lms), defined
by de Castro (2002:2) as ‘mosaics of prescriptions created throughout the history
of the users according to a range of incentives and goals’.
Following both definitions, we can examine co-management in local contexts (Berkes et al. 2000), employing livelihood and historical processes as well as
ecological and economic characteristics. In those regards, the perspective on comanagement follows an interesting observation by Jentoft (2006), that sometimes
the problems in a fishery’s co-management do not result from fisheries management itself, but from representation of a deeper socio-political and institutional
problem emerging from the society by which it is surrounded.
10
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 10
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:33
A variety of processes affecting co-management in Latin America fisheries are shown in Table 1. These involve different temporal stages and economic
perspectives, including: cooperatives; incipient developments towards co-management practices; and cases with government support. As Table 1 shows, co-management is increasing in Latin America, firstly through as cooperatives in Central
America and secondly through other co-management processes in all areas, where
power is shared to differing degrees. Such processes can increase the chances of
successful management, as they include the participation of users and parties
interested in the resource, which are especially the case in the small-scale communities that rely on coastal, estuarine or riverine resources for their livelihoods.
Table 1.
Selected examples of local rules and of co-management processes in Latin America2
Reference
Areas
Fishery
Control of resources Environment
Begossi (2001, 2004, Coastal fishing
2006)
communities in
the Atlantic Forest
coast, Brazil
High species
Informal division of
­richness that are
fishing spots
caught for consumption and sale (fish
and shrimp)
Coastal shores,
Atlantic Forest coast
Seixas and
Santa Catarina,
Troutt (2004), Seixas Ibiraquera Lake,
(2004)
Brazil
Shrimp fishery
Coastal
Local demands for
management and
laws, local forum
Levieil and Orlove
(1990), Orlove
(1991)
Fishing communiOrestias sp.
ties at Lake Titicaca, (Cyprinodont)
Puno, Peru.
represents 67% of
the annual catch.
Gillnets are used
for fishing. About
2/3 of the catch is
commercialized.
Fishing territories
Large and high
are communally
altitude lake
controlled. T
­ otora
yields derived from
exclusive use rights.
Cordell (2006) and
Castilla and Fernadez, (1998)
Coastal areas of
Chile (mea)
Especially benthic
resources,Venus antigua clam and Concholepas concholepas
gastropod [‘loco’].
meabr (ManageCoastal shores
ment and Exploitation Areas for
Benthic Resources),
territorial use rights
to artisanal fisher
unions.
– 547 meabr, 301
with management
plan on benthic
resources.
– 1989-1992: total
closure
– 1993: (tac: Total
Allowable Catch)
Hook and line,
beach seines,
pelagic and other
fish
mer
Seixas (2006), Seixas Arraial do Cabo
et al. (2008)
Marine Extractive
Reserve, Rio de
Janeiro State, Brazil
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 11
Coastal shores
11
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Reference
Areas
Pinedo e Soria
(2008),
[Editors]
Duque et al.(2008);
­Fernandes and
Berkes (2008)
Peru, Bolivia, Colom- Fish, mulyi-gear,
bia, Guiana Central multi-specific
Examples from
diverse fisheries
Almeida and Menezes ( 1994), Begossi
(1998), Begossi et al.
(1999)
Extractive Reserve of
Upper Juruá,
Acre State, Brazil
(1990). Demanded
by local population
represented by cns3,
legalized by ibama
in 1990 (Decree
98.897)
McDaniel, 1997
Reserva Commu– Fish using nylon
mesh nets
nal Tamishiyacu(trampas), -LongTahuayo (rctt),
lines (espineles)
Tahuao River, Chino,
– Spears ( flechas)
Peruvian
– commercial
Amazon.
fishing is a
supplemental
(1991)
activity,
importance of
the fishery for
subsistence
– sales at market of
Iquitos.
Lakes, river
– Communal
management in
1984.
– rctt established
in 1991
– community elects
a inspector of the
fishery, vigilance
system
– fishery is more
sustainable than
in 1980.
Queiroz (2005),
Castello (2004),
http://www.
mamirauá.org.br
First eem (Ecological
Station) in 1990,
and secondly (1996)
as rds (Sustainable Development
Reserve, approved
by Amazonas State),
Amazonas State,
Brazil.
About 60 riverine
communities in the
Reserve. Pirarucu
(Arapaima gigas)
and Tambaqui are
important commercial fish.
Management is
Rivers Solimões
decided with local
and Japurá, Amazon
participation in As- várzea.
semblies and there
is a Deliberative
Council. ngos and
researches participate in monitoring.
There is a local
radio (Ligado em
Mamirauá – ‘Linked
in Mamirauá’).
De Castro (2002,
2004), de Castro
and MacGrath
(2001), McGrath et
al. (1993), McGrath,
(2000),
Macgrath et al
(2008), Ruffino
(2008) (in Pinedo
and Soria, 2008)
‘Fishing accords or
agreements’,
Amazon lakes,
Brazil.
Multi gear and
multi-species fisheries. Gillnet fishing
for migratory fish
(catfishes). Other
catches are tambaqui (Colossoma
macropomum) and
pirarucu (Arapaima
gigas).
Community
control is based
on ownership of
lake shorefront
property by community members. Is is a
system of collective
ownership based
on property held by
individual members
of the community.
12
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 12
Fishery
Fish and other
fauna. Fishing
is permitted for
local consumption
(subsistence). There
are about 6,000 inhabitants in a areas
of 5,062 Km2
Control of resources Environment
From local or
Rivers and Lakes
informal rules (River
Píchis, Peru) to
co-management processes (lagos Yahuarcaca in Colombia
and management of
Arapaima in Guiana
Central)
The management
Rivers Juruá and
plan was approved Tejo
in 1994 by ibama.
Management include local participation, through meetings in assemblies
with ribeirinhos and
with researchers.
Lakes, lower
Amazon River,
Amazon várzea.
Seasonal flood
variations.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Reference
Areas
King (1997)
Caye Caulkner,
Lobster Panulirus
Belizean Coast
argus/traps and
-cooperatives in the dive
sixties,
Belize
Fishery
Control of resources Environment
– 1960: northern
Coastal sites
fishermen
cooperative
society (nfcs)
Pollnac (1977)
153 small-scale
fishers from six
communities from
the Pacific Ocean
and one (Colon) in
the Caribbean Sea:
Panama.
Traps and nets, hook Cooperatives
and lines.
Cooperative
members are more
optimistic about
attaining the best
possible that nonmembers.
Pacific Ocean,
Panama.
Sutinem and
Pollnac, (1981)
Golf of Nicoya,
Guanacaste, Pacific
Ocean, Costa Rica.
Data from 187
fishers from 4 communities.
Croakers (Sciaenidae), Snappers
(Lutjanidae), Snooks
(Centropomidae),
and catfish (Ariidae)
are common. Market
for fishing, importance of middlemen.
Golf of Nicoya,
Pacific Ocean.
Cooperatives.
There is high variation in the perception of benefits in
participating in
cooperatives
Overall, Table 1 gives illustrative examples of local and co-management institutions in Latin America. Incipient forms of co-management are illustrated considering informal division of areas in Brazil and in the fishing rules of Lake Titicaca.
Other developed forms of co-management include: co-management systems as
mers (Marine Extractive Reserves) or rds (Development Sustainable Reserves in
Brazil), and meabr (Marine Exploitation Areas for Benthic Resources) in Chile,
along with other Communal-Based management systems in Peru, among other
areas. Gradients between different scales and levels of local rules have been observed for many of the world’s fisheries (Berkes 1985), and are also present in
Latin America. The scales and ranges include cases from incipient management
forms to co-management processes, those illustrated by territorial rights at different scales, such as groups, clans, villages.
Although Table 1 provides an overview of processes and factors that impact
co-management of fisheries, the information is not complete. In order to tackle
the Latin American reality concerning resources and people, co-management
should take into consideration the following:
1. The local level context of the small scale fishing communities as resource
users;
2. Their geographic dispersion;
3. Their local rules regarding the use and sharing of resources, such as territories and taboos;
4. The scarce available data on the aquatic resources;
5. The significant body of available local ecological knowledge; and
6. The current levels of poverty and social needs.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 13
13
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Those are important variables to include in assessing Latin American co-management processes. Nevertheless, there is no evidence in the studies taken from
Table 1 that they are all addressed. Some of those variables are included in the
different co-management processes shown, but in an uneven fashion. Three of
those aspects: 1) local context of the fisheries; 2) geographic dispersion, and 3)
scarce data available on resources, are probably common to all thirteen cases mentioned in Table 1.4 Other variables, such as the use of local rules, and the available local knowledge are shown, at least partially or incipiently, in cases cited for
Peru (Levieil and Orlove 1990; Orlove 1991; McDaniel 1997), in riverine fisheries
in South America (Pinedo and Soria 2008), and in extractive reserves and sustainable reserves in Brazil. It may be that the preoccupation and awareness associated
with the importance of local knowledge towards management, has reached Latin
America only in the last decade, thereby having still many opponents among academics and governmental executors, in spite of being a practice in Oceania and in
other fisheries of the world since the eighties (Johannes 1980). In other words, for
the cases mentioned, there is only a marginal or incipient process that embodies
local rules or local knowledge in the development that leads towards co-management of the fisheries.
The last variable, ‘current social and economic levels’, is taken into account
in any intentional co-management (or management) process in Latin America,
but there is no evidence of results associated with the development of the co-management process, concerning the life quality of the local people involved. There is
also no sufficient time lag for diachronic comparisons in Latin America. Salas et
al. (2007) suggests that some weakness are relevant in the management of small
scale fisheries in Latin America, such as a lack of control of fishing effort, weak
institutional structures, lack of a framework integrating social, bio-ecological, and
economic aspects, unresolved conflicts with other fleets, among others.
One exception to the observation by Salas et al. (2007)5 might be the Sustainable Reserves in Brazil, such as Mamirauá (Table 1), where social and economic developments were part of the management ordering since the process of
its creation. It is an illustrative example of an integrated co-management process
that embodies many of the recommended features. I had the opportunity to visit
Mamirauá Sustainable in 2003, and to follow some of the publications on the development of the reserve, including its fisheries and co-management processes.
Mamirauá not only includes the participation of local fishermen in management
processes, including the Pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) (Castello 2004), but it also includes a livelihood concept that incorporates a variety of incremental features,
such as solar energy panels, water filtering, health care, among others, thus linking the management system with people´s lives (Website Mamirauá).
Central America seems to have an historical focus on Cooperatives
(­Table 1). For example, Belize’s fishermen´s cooperatives emerged in the sixties
and have achieved political independence, turning into an interesting example of
co-management (Begossi and Brown 2003). There is no single recipe for a successful co-management process, but a local process integrated into its ecological, cultural, social, historical and economic context, with local participation and power
sharing, allows for the creation of a much stronger co-management plan.
14
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 14
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Institutional arrangements for the co-management of small-scale fisheries vary in Latin America. Some of these are simple institutional arrangements,
where fisher´s engagement is based upon and rooted within historical local movements, such as the ‘Fishing Accords or Agreements’ in the Amazon (a kind of
collective contract). Others lie under federal government domains (such as mers –
Maritime Extractive Reserves in Brazil).
For Latin America, some additional features should be taken into account,
although they fall beyond the fishery itself, which are their historical, economical and cultural pedigrees. In countries with a history of authoritative governments and institutions, even if democratic changes have occurred in recent times,
authoritative institutions are often still found, carrying on top-down patterns
of behavior. This observation applies to many institutions in Brazil, including
the country’s environmental agencies (Begossi and Brown 2003). The history of
the ‘Colônias de Pescadores’ in Brazil is also an illustrative example (Breton et
al. 1996), along with examples of attempts to impose extractive reserves (mers)
(­Begossi 2006) and of institutions created by environmental agencies to ‘represent’ fishers (the aremac in mer of Arraial do Cabo, Seixas et al. 2009). Other
top-down practices include areas that were closed to fishing (artisanal fishers) by
government environmental agencies, as occurred in islands of Ilha Grande Bay
in Brazil (Begossi et al. 2010), and as well conflicts observed in southern coastal
Brazil (Kalikovsky and Satterfield 2004). For more information, a comparative
analysis on extractive reserves and sustainable development reserves in Brazil is
available in Lopes et al. (2008).
Corruption and bribery also disrupt any process of development, governance and management. An illustrative case is presented in a study of community-based management in Venezuela (Zannetell and Knutt 2002), which can be
generalized to Latin America, and includes the difficulties in dealing with regulatory credibility due to corruption at higher levels of the institutions. The question
of legitimacy emerges: how can real co-management develop without legitimate
institutions and processes? Pinkerton and John (2008) analyze how a legitimate
system can be developed, giving examples at different stages of the process and
taking into account historical, institutional, and political features at the local level,
not just the characteristics of the fisheries themselves. Unfortunately, a few cases
in Latin America could be considered as the outcome of legitimate processes; the
main reason for that is not strictly tied to fisheries, but to the general behavior
found within institutions, especially governmental institutions that still carry
within past autocratic behaviors.
The cost of changing institutions, or creating emergency institutions,
should also be considered (de Castro 2002). This prompts a general consideration
of transaction costs, such as the cost of information, bargains, enforcing rules,
collective action, and more, all of which should be considered (Hanna 2003). Differences in legitimacy, both in the process of emerging institutions and in the
process of the practice of co-management, can led to differences in transaction
costs, as shown by Begossi (2006) in Brazil. For example, failing to consider preexisting local rules in a fishery can increase transaction costs and reduce legitimacy.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 15
15
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Discussion
Tackling fishery management has some peculiarities that should be taken into
account in countries where there are no baselines and no temporal data available,
which applies for most Latin American countries. Those peculiarities are how to
detect overfishing, the lack of historical data and the lack of information on tropical species. Other aspect to be considered here is how to analyze Latin America
cases in direct comparison with the current models of co-management, specifically adaptive management, ecosystem approach, local knowledge, and protected
areas (following Ruddle and Hickey 2000).
Problems Associated with Management: The Problem in Detecting Overfishing
The difficulties in detecting overfishing or even a decrease in catch production are
complex, especially in places where there are no historical data, or an absence of
data collection at regular intervals, preventing temporal comparisons. If in other
fisheries there are ‘shifting baselines’ (Pauly 1995), there are often no baselines
at all, or even data that permit comparative analysis of stock levels for small-scale
tropical fisheries in Latin America. Information from other sources needs to be
considered. Pauly (1995) pointed out the necessity of developing frameworks in order to incorporate earlier knowledge, or historical data on fish production. Johannes et al. (2000) observed also that fishers could provide key information concerning environmental clues, as well as the levels of fish production. At a disciplinary
level, ethnobiology and human ecology attempt to incorporate local fisher knowledge of a variety of ecological and biological factors pertaining to small-scale fisheries with scientific understandings (Lopes and Begossi 2009; Silvano et al. 2009).
Such local ecological knowledge (lek) includes the knowledge fishers have of the
ecology of fish in both freshwater and marine systems, as already shown in several
studies within Brazilian small-scale fisheries along the Atlantic Forest coast and
in riverine areas (Begossi 2008; Begossi and Silvano 2008; Silvano 2004; Silvano
et al. 2006, 2008; Silvano and Begossi 2002, 2005). Details on the terms linked to
‘ecological knowledge’ are found in Berkes (2008).
For some fisheries, such as for Amazonian rivers, some data on landed
catches have been collected in detail (Bailey and Petrere 1989; Petrere 1989; Barthem and Goulding 1997; MacCord et al. 2007; Ruffino 2004), but only scarce
­information is available for many coastal environments, where many small-scale
fisheries are located in Latin America. In addition to local knowledge (lek) that
can be recorded from fishers, other important indicators can be obtained through
interviews with fishers, as follows:
a) Recall of information from older fishers, to produce historical data on fisheries;
b) Increasing use of marine space, indicating an increased level of effort within
a small-scale fishery. Such changes were observed by Berkes et al. (2006). As
observed by those authors, such an increase in effort level can also occur when
a fishery changes from local to export production;
c) Observations of changes in target species: for example, the ‘fishing down the
food web’ effect (Pauly et al. 1998) could be highlighted when a change occurs
16
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 16
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
in a small-scale fishery that has a carnivorous target (such as groupers or snappers, for example) and moves to a target that is an invertebrate-eater or a species from a lower trophic level (such croakers, or porgies, for example). If such
a change in target species is observed in a small-scale fishery, it might indicate
overfishing. It is important to note that even artisanal fisheries can impact
species with slow maturation (such as groupers); such impacts were observed
in six Caribbean islands, among other sites studied (Pinnegar and Engelhard
2007);
d) Observations on the change of the size of species (‘size-at-age’), or on the age
of maturation (‘size-at-maturation’) (Law 2000) can also give clues on the level
of stress within a small-scale fishery. For example, after interviewing 413 artisanal, small-scale fishers at the Ilha Grande Bay, in the coast of Rio de Janeiro
State, respondents noted the decreased size of important local economic species, such as grouper (Begossi et al. 2010; Oliveira 2010); and
e) Observations on the increased quantity of a lower trophic level species can also
be indicative of the changing stock of predators, which are often the target
species of small-scale fisheries (very often the expensive, ‘first quality species’,
Begossi and Richerson, 1992). Such observations were also reported by the
fishers of Ilha Grande Bay (Begossi et al. 2010; Oliveira 2010).
The importance of the local knowledge of fishers cannot be neglected, and it
should be incorporated in fishery studies because it serves as an indicator of the
healthiness of the fishery at the stock level.
Inserting Latin American Experiences in Current Models of Co-Management
Tropical fisheries, especially small-scale fisheries, differ in a variety of ways from
their counterparts in temperate areas. Kurien (2001) compared the ‘temperate-­
minority’ world to the ‘tropical-majority’ world in several aspects, suggesting redefinitions in concepts and analysis, such as on definition of community, on market interactions, on the role of the state, among others. Ruddle (2007) observed
that resources and technology, among other variables, interact differently with the
ecosystems of the two disparate environments. For tropical small-scale fisheries,
the author points out several features, including the limitation of fish to inshore
areas, socially-determined fishing areas, the numerous and dispersed nature of
fishing communities, the fisheries’ biological and technical complexity, the limited employment opportunities, and the presence of local territories, among others.
Such features are well observed in Latin America; for example, many examples
can be recalled from Brazil, such as fishing territories, the complex extraction of
multi-level resources using a variety of gear and techniques, and the geographical dispersion of fisheries (Begossi 2006; Begossi et al. 2004; Diegues 2005). How
these variables can be associated with the current models of co-management deserves some thought. Models of co-management vary, and the paradigms implemented in known processes have been deeply analyzed by Ruddle and Hickey
(2008), suggesting some models and considerations (see also Rojas 2009):
1) Adaptive Management: a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach that takes into account
the uncertainties and complexities of the environment, evolving as adaptive
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 17
17
29-11-2010 13:52:34
co-management (Berkes 2009). For an analysis of the insertion of adaptive
management into co-management processes, see Berkes (2007). According to
Ruddle and Hickey (2008), Adaptive Management has been widely applied in
the Pacific and is well suited for nearshore fisheries where cooperative management or data-less management is a possible approach. Johannes (2002)
gives examples of community-based management in many Pacific islands and
areas, which can be seen as a form of adaptive management. For an analysis
of integrating co-management processes and Adaptive Management in Latin
America, see i) McConney et al. (2007) for Barbados coastal pelagic fish and
sea urchins; ii) the Grenada beach seine fishery; and iii) Belize protected areas.
2) Ecosystem Approach: as noted by Ruddle and Hickey (2008), it was adopted
in 2000 by the Convention on Biological Diversity. This approach integrates
a variety of other approaches, as it focuses on the biological organization,
structure, processes, functions of and interactions among organisms and
their environment, including humans and diversity as part of the ecosystem;
benefit-sharing and adaptive management are important aspects of this approach. McGrath et al. (2008) present a study based on this approach for the
Amazon floodplain (‘várzea’), where economic activities of the households are
integrated within the economical and historical context of the region towards
the co-management system of the fishing agreements.
3) The Local Knowledge approach: considered to be empirically-based and practically oriented, this approach is not a sufficient management process on its
own, but supports the development of indicators, moving towards adaptive
management (Ruddle and Hickey 2008). It has been widely applied in the Pacific (Aswani and Hamilton 2004), and the organization of such local knowledge towards management processes can be extremely useful, as shown by
several studies of small-scale coastal fisheries in Brazil (Begossi et al. 2004,
2006; Silvano et al. 2006, 2009, 2009a).
4) Protected Areas: according to Ruddle and Hickey (2008), those areas emerged
from the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, and the World Parks Congress. Frequently, government environmental agencies in Latin America have based their environmental agendas on
creating protected areas through top-down approaches, excluding the local population from either the management process or the areas themselves. Top-down
approaches are exemplified by the Marine Reserves in Santa Lucia (Pomeroy
2003) and in Brazil (Begossi and Brown 2003). Diegues (1999) observed in Brazil
that top-down models that caused the displacement of traditional populations
were additional causes for the impoverishment of local people. Even recently,
governmental agencies implemented an old decree (nº 98.864, January 23, 1990)
that forbade fishing activities around many islands of Grande Bay, Brazil, even
for small-scale, artisanal local fishers, disrupting their ability to obtain resources for consumption and sale (Begossi et al. 2010).
18
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 18
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Concluding Remarks: Methods and Perspectives
In order to deal with the variables that affect local people and the use of resources
within artisanal, small-scale fisheries, and to employ those variables as tools for
management, we have been using a method that includes four key aspects as
a basic template for approaching small-scale communities in both Amazon riverine fisheries and in the coastal communities of the Atlantic Forest (Begossi 2008,
Begossi et al. 2004, 2009). Four main steps to collect data on small-scale fisheries
permits to subsidize knowledge on the variables described earlier in this study
(geographic dispersion, local rules, lack of data, local ecological knowledge, and
poverty and social needs), as follows (Begossi 2008):
1) The use of fishery resources: besides the use of aquatic resources, the use of
plants and game, along with the techniques used to obtain resources; preferences and taboos relating to resources, among others (Hanazaki et al. 2007;
Begossi et al. 2004).
2) The use of the aquatic space, such as fishing areas (Begossi 2006).
3) Fisher behavior, and information regarding their decision-making processes,
such as where to fish, what to consume and what to sell. One of the tools for
understanding this dynamic is optimal foraging theory (Begossi et al. 2009a)
4) The knowledge fishers have of local species’ biology and ecology, such as the
ethnotaxonomy, ethnobiology, and ethnoecology of fish (Begossi and Silvano
2008; Begossi et al. 2008).
The four aspects mentioned address the interactions of fishers and resources;
we then add information on the community’s historical context and livelihood
processes, including these in a household dynamics analysis. For the historical
context, when we compare the trajectories of inhabitants of the Atlantic Forest
coast (the Caiçaras) and the inhabitants of the riverine areas of the Amazon (the
Caboclos), we find some similar and some divergent aspects, leading to different
outcomes for co-management processes. The similar contextual aspects include
the high biodiversity of terrestrial and aquatic environments (riverine or coastal),
their descent from native Indians and Portuguese colonizers, a similar cultural
background, a dependence upon artisanal fishing for subsistence and for the
regional market trade, using artisanal fishing technologies including dugout or
­motor canoes and small boats, as well as range of gear types from hooks and lines
to set gillnets and a variety of different traps. When there are no restrictions, often
from environmental agencies, Caiçaras and Caboclos still maintain small plots for
the cultivation of Manihot esculenta (manioc), through swidden cultivation; plants
and other terrestrial resources are gathered from the forest, including medicinal
plants and game. Currently, both Caiçaras and Caboclos have been affected by very
restrictive circumstances given by environmental agencies, industries, and tourism-related activities, in addition to agricultural pressure from major landowners
in the north (Begossi 2004).
Caiçaras and Caboclos differ in regard to the historical processes related to
their grass-roots movements (Begossi 1998). Along the Atlantic Forest coast no
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 19
19
29-11-2010 13:52:34
strong grass-roots movements occurred, and religious influences came from Pentecostal churches. In contrast, among the small-scale fishers in the Amazon, there
were the Rubber-tapper´s movements, political organizations and, as a religious
counterpart, Liberation Theology via the ‘Pastoral da Terra’. Movements concerning the conservation of lakes in the Amazon began during the eighties and were
carried out through local, pre-existing institutions of rubber-tappers and fishers,
among others; these initial measures paved the way for the development of the
Extractive Reserve of Mamirauá, as well as the fishing agreements or accords of
the Amazon (Lima 1999; de Castro 2002; de Castro and McGrath 2001).
One Question Remains: How can Conservation be Attractive to the Poor?
Facing the context in which there are several restrictive aspects for the livelihoods
of small-scale artisanal fishers, including the coastal Caiçaras of the Atlantic Forest and the riverine Caboclos of the Amazon, some thoughts can be useful:
a) Are economic models of optimization and their trade-offs sufficient to detect
the costs and benefits of conservation to small-scale fisheries? In that regard,
how can we deal with excludability and subtractability of the managed resources
in relation to local livelihoods?
b) Are tacs (‘Termo de Ajuste de Conduta’ – Terms of Adjustment of Conducts)6
as applied to small-scale communities (McGrath et al. 2008) sufficient to
improve living conditions and to be attractive to fishers?
The experience of the Development Sustainable Reserve of Mamirauá
(Padoch et al. 1999) tells us something about linkages among co-management,
livelihood processes and improved living conditions. Further exploration of these
connections can be a basis in order to expand conservation processes to include
livelihoods and the multi-level activities that occur in the high biodiversity environments that are widespread in Latin America.
In order to make co-management feasible in tropical countries, a higher
degree of legitimacy should be obtained, even if it increases the transaction costs
of the co-management system. One of the roads towards increasing credibility
between co-managers is through a dialogue between those with scientific and
local knowledge. This dialogue would not solve the credibility problem between
governmental agencies and fishers, but would help improve the local management of the resources.
Finally, for the cases shown in this study, we notice that in spite of a local
heterogeneity of data and of local processes, at least three aspects are common
to Latin American small-scale artisanal fisheries. These aspects refer to the local level context of the small scale fishing communities as resource users, their
geographic dispersion, and the scarce data available on resources. The necessity
to embody local fishers into management processes, including their empirical
knowledge on the local natural resources (Local Ecological knowledge), is urgent
in the management processes in Latin America, as well as the organization of a
systematic data collection at landing points, which could be done with the help
of local fishers. Such data are important in order to detect temporal and spatial
20
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 20
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
changes, as well as to monitor the local fisheries. Management is, however, a local process, and local features, such as their ecological, economical, cultural, and
historical contexts explain the heterogeneity found in the outcomes within the
management of Latin American fisheries.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 21
21
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Notes
1
Presented at mare Conference 2009: Revision: January 05, 2010. I am grateful for the
kind invitation from mare for this keynote, along with their support; unicamp for partial
support of the trip to Amsterdam; cnpq, Brazil, for a productivity scholarship. I wish
to thank P.F. Lopes for sending me some related publications, and Benjamin Blount for
a detailed revision and helpful suggestions on earlier drafts.
2 After Begossi (2002) and Begossi and Brown (2003). Co-management includes prestarting systems, such as from local informal rulers to co-management processes.
3 cns (National Council of Rubber Tappers): Conselho Nacional dos Seringueiros, asareaj
(Association of rubber-tappers and agricultors of the Upper Juruá): Associação dos
Seringueiros e Agricultores da Reserva Extrativista do Alto Juruá)
4 Countries were fao (or other bilateral agreements or institutions) developed data
collecting efforts on small-scale fisheries have more available sets of data, but lack of data
exist especially for small-scale fisheries; even national enterprises for research and data
collection started late in the 20th century (see Aguerro 1991 for Pacific coastal fisheries ,
and Copescal/Fao 2008 for continental fisheries.).
5 In fact, Salas et al. (2007) studied coastal fisheries, and the case mentioned, Mamirauá,
is a riverine (continental) fishery.
6 tacs, or (‘Termo de Ajuste de Conduta’ – Terms of Adjustment of Conducts) are
compensatory mechanisms by which industries or other enterprises that impact the
environment may ‘compensate’ by promoting environmental management. One form
of compensation is to give support to local organizations that promote co-management
processes.
References
Aguerro, M.
1991. Small-scale fisheries research in Pacific South America. In:
R. Durand, J. Lemoalle e J. Weber (eds)La Recherche Face à
la pêche artisanale, Symp. Int. orstom-ifremer, Montpellier
France, Paris, orstom; 223-241.
Almeida, M.W.B., A.M. Menezes.
1994 O Destino da Floresta. Reserva Extrativista do Alto Juruá. Dumará
Distribuidora de Publicações Ltda, Rio de Janeiro:165-225.
Aswani S., R. Hamilton.
2004 Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Customary
Sea Tenure with Marine and Social Science for Conservation of
Bumphead Parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in the Roviana
Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Environmental Conservation. Rio de
Janeiro 31(1):69-83.
Barthem R., M. Goulding.
1997 The catfish connection. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bayley P.B., Petrere M.
1989 Amazon fisheries: assessment methods, current status and
management options. Canadian Special Publication on Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 106:385–398.
22
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 22
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Begossi, A.
2008 Local Knowledge and Training Towards Management.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 10:591-603.
2006 Temporal Stability in Fishing Spots: Conservation and Comanagement inBrazilian Artisanal Coastal Fisheries. Ecology &
Society 11(1): 5. Available: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1
2006a The ethnoecology of Caiçara Metapopulations (Atlantic
Forest, Brazil): Ecological Concepts and Questions. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2:40. Available:
www.ethnobiomed.com/content/2/1/40.
2002 Latin America Fisheries, isee Tunisia The 7th Biennal
Conference of the International Society for Ecological
Economics, Sousse, Tunisia, March 6-9, 2002 Available:
www.ecoleconeurope.com/iseetunisia2002.html.
2001 Cooperative and Territorial Resources: Brazilian Artisanal
Fisheries. In: J. Burger, R. Norgaard, E. Ostrom, D. Policansky,
B. Goldstein (Eds.), Protecting the Commons: a Framework for
Resource Management in the Americas. Island Press, Washington,
D.C., usa:109-130.
1998 Cultural and Ecological Resilience Among Caiçaras of the
Atlantic Forest and Caboclos of the Amazon, Brazil. In: C. Folke,
F. Berkes (Eds.), Linking social and cultural systems for resilience,
(6):129-157. Cambridge U. Press.
Begossi, A., D. Brown. (Eds.)
2003 Experiences with fisheries co-management in Latin America
and the Caribbean, In: D.C. Wilson, J.R. Nielsen, P. Degnbol
(Eds.), The fisheries co-management experience: accomplishments,
challenges, and prospects. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands:135-150.
Begossi, A., P.J. Richerson.
1992 The animal diet of families from Búzios Island: an Optimal
Foraging Approach. Journal of Human Ecology 3(2): 433-458.
Begossi, A., R.A.M. Silvano.
2008 Ecology and Ethnoecology of Dusky Grouper
(Epinephelusmarginatus (Lowe, 1834)) Along the Coast
of Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
2008.4:20doi:10.1186/1746-4269-4-20. Available:
www.ethnobiomed.com/content/4/1/20.
Begossi, A., B. Amaral, R.A.M. Silvano
1999 Uses of Fish and Game by Inhabitants of an Extractive Reserve
(Upper Juruá, Acre, Brazil). Environment, Development and
Sustainability 1:1-21.
Begossi, A., N. Hanazaki, R. Ramos.
2004 Food chain and the reasons for food taboos in the Amazon and
in the Atlantic Forest coast. Ecological Applications 14(5):13341343.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 23
23
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Begossi, A., P.F. Lopes, L.E.C. Oliveira, H. Nakano
2010
Ecologia de Pescadores da Baía de Ilha Grande. Editora Rima, in
press.
Begossi, A., A.L. Silva, C.S. Seixas, F. de Castro, J Pezzuti, N Hananaki,
N. Peroni, R.A.M. Silvano
2004 Ecologia de Pescadores da Mata Atlântica e da Amazônia. Ed.
Hucitec. São Paulo. Available: www.fisheriesandfood.org.
Begossi, A., M. Clauzet, J.L. Figueiredo, L. Garuana, R.V. Lima, P.F. Lopes,
M. Ramires, A.L. Silva, R.A.M. Silvano
2008 Are biological species and high-ranking Categories Real? A
Comparison of Fish Folk Taxonomy in the Atlantic Forest and in
the Amazon (Brazil). Current Anthropology 49:292-306.
Begossi A., M. Clauzet, N. Hanazaki, P.F. Lopes, M. Ramires, R.A.M Silvano
2009 Fishers’ decision-making, optimal foraging, and management,
iii Seminário de Gestão Socioambiental para o Desenvolvimento
Sustentável da Aqüicultura e da Pesca no Brasil – iii segap April
2009, Arraial do Cabo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Berkes, F.
2009 Evolution of Co-management: Role of Knowledge Generation,
Bridging Organizations and Social Learning. Journal of
Environmental Management 90:1692-1702
2008 Sacred Ecology. Routledge: New York.
1985 Fishermen and the Tragedy of the Commons. Environmental
Conservation 12:199-206.
Berkes, F. (Ed.)
2007 Adaptive Co-Management and Complexity: Exploring the Many
Faces of Co-Management. In: D. Armitage, N. Doubleday (Eds).
Adpative Co-Management, ubc Press, Vancouver:19-37.
Berkes, F., et al.
2006 Globalization, Roving Bandits, and Marine Resources. Science
311:1557-1558.
Berkes, F., et al.
2000 Managing Small-scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and
Methods. International Research Development Centre, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada (Portuguese Edition organized by D. Kalisoky,
furg).
Breton Y., et al.
1996 Fisheries Management and the Colonias in Brazil: a Case Study
of a Top-Down Producers Organization, Society and Natural
Resources 9:307-315.
Castello, L.
2004 A Method to Count Pirarucu Arapaima gigas: Fishers,
Assessment, and Management. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 24:379-389.
24
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 24
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Castilla, J.C., M. Fernandez.
1998 Small-scale Benthic Fisheries in Chile: on Co-management and
Sustainable Use of Benthic Invertebrates. Ecological Applications
8(1):S124-S132.
Castro, F. de
2004 Níveis de Decisão e o Manejo dos Recursos Pesqueiros.
In: A. Begossi, (Ed). Ecologia de Pescadores da Mata Atlântica
e da Amazônia. Editora Hucitec, São Paulo, Brazil. Available:
www.fisheriesandfood.org/publications: 255-284
2002 From Myths to Rules: The Evolution of Local Management in
the Amazonian Floodplain. Environment and History 8:197-216.
Castro, F. de, D. McGrath.
2001 O Manejo Comunitário dos Lagos na Amazônia. In: Parcerias
estratégicas, Centro de Estudos Estratégicos, Ministério da
Ciência e Tecnologia, Brasília, Brazil:112-126
Castro, F. de, D. McGrath, M. Crossa.
2002 Adaptandose a los Cambios: la Habilidad de Las Comunidades
Riberenas en el Manejo de Sistemas deLlagos de la Amazonia
Brasilena. In: R.C. Smith, D. Pinnedo, (Eds), El cuidado de
los bienes comunes, gobierno y manejo de los lagosy bosques en
la Amazonia, Instituto del Bien Comum. Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos, Lima, Peru: 272-303
Chao, N.L., et al.
2001 Conservation and Management of Ornamental Fish Resources
of the Rio Negro Basin, Amazonia, Brasil (Projeto Piaba). edua,
Manaus.
Cordell, J.
2006 Scaling up Marine Management: the Role of Protected Areas. The
World Bank, Washington D.C.
1989 A Sea of Small Boats. Cultural Survival Inc., Cambridge,
Massachusetts, usa.
copescal/fao.
2008 La Pesca continental en Amaerica Latina: su contribución
económica y social e instrumentos normativos asociados,
Documento Ocasional 11, Roma.
Crampton, W.G.R.
1999 The impact of the ornamental fish trade on the Discus
Symphysodon aequifasciatus: a case study from the floodplain
forests of Estacao Ecologica Mamirauá. In: C. Padoch,
J.M. Ayres, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, A. Henderson (Eds.) Várzea
diversity, development and conservation of Amazonia’s whitewater
floodplains. New York Botanical Garden, ny:29-44.
Diegues, A.C.
2005 Enciclopédia Caiçara. Ed. Hucitec: São Paulo.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 25
25
29-11-2010 13:52:34
1999 Human Populations and Coastal Wetlands: Conservation and
Management in Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management 42:187210.
Hanazaki N. and A. Begossi.
2004. Does fish still matter ? Changes in the diet of two Brazilian
fishing communities. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 42(4-5):279301.
Hanazaki N. et al.
2007 Etnobotânica Caiçara no Litoral Paulista. Editôra Rima, São
Paulo.
Hanna, S.
2003 The Economics of Co-management. In: D.C. Wilson,
J.R. Nielsen, D. Degnbol (Eds.). Fisheries Co-Management Experiences. Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht:51-60.
Jentoft, S. (Ed).
2003 Co-management the way forward. Pp.. In: D.C. Wilson,
J.R. Nielsen, D. Degnbol (Eds.), Fisheries Co-Management
Experiences. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands:1-14
Jentoft, S.
2007 Limits of Governability: Institutional Implications for Fisheries
and Coastal Governance. Marine Policy 31:360-370.
2006 Beyond Fisheries Management: The Phronetic Dimension.
Marine Policy 30:671-680.
Johannes, R.E.
2002 The Renaissance of Community Based Marine Resource
Management in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 33:317-40.
1981 Words of the lagoon. University of California Press: Berkeley.
Johannes, R.E., M.R.M. Freeman, R. Hamilton.
2000 Ignore Fishers Knowledge and Miss the Boat. Fish and Fisheries
1:257-271.
Kalikoski, D.C., T. Satterfield.
2004 On Crafting a Fisheries Co-Management Arrangement in the
Estuary of Patos Lagoon (Brazil): Opportunities and Challenges
faced through implementation. Marine Policy 28:503-522.
King, T.D.
1997 Folk Management Among Belizean Lobster Fishermen: Success
and Resilience or Decline and Depletion? Human Organization
56(4):418-426.
Kurien, J.
2001 People and the Sea, The Tropical Marine Lecture Series, mare.
Amsterdam.
Law, R.
2000 Fishing, Selection, and Phenotypic Evolution. ices Journal of
Marine Science 57:659-668.
26
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 26
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Levieil, D., Orlove, B.S.
1990 Local Control of Aquatic Resources: Community and Ecology in
Lake Titicaca, Peru. American Anthropologist 92(2):362-382.
Lima, D.M.
1999 Equity, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Preservation:
some questions About Ecological Partnerships in the
Brazilian Amazon. In: C. Padoch, J.M. Ayres, M.P. Vasquez,
A. Henderson. (Org.). Varzea: Diversity, Development, and
Conservation of Amazonia’s Whitewater Floodplains. New York:
The NewYork Botanical Garden Press:247-263.
Lopes, P.F.M.
2008 Extracted and Farmed Shrimp Fisheries in Brazil: Economic,
Environmental and Social Consequences of Exploitation.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 10:639-655.
Lopes, P.F., A. Begossi (Eds).
2009 Current Trends in Human Ecology. Cambridge Scholars Pub., uk.
Lopes, et al.
2008 Extractive Reserves and Sustainable Development Reserves
in the Amazon and on the coast: resilient alternatives? Paper
presented at the xvi International Meeting of the Society for
Human Ecology, Bellingham, wa, usa, June 10-13, 2008.
MacCord P.F., A. Begossi
2006. Dietary changes over time in a Caiçara community from the
Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ecology & Society 11(2):38.
Maccord, P.F., et al.
2007 Dynamics of Artisanal Fisheries in Two Brazilian Amazonian
reserves: Implications to Co-management. Hydrobiologia [doi
10.1007/s10750-006-0486-4].
Mamirauá
www.mamirauá.org.br
McConney, P., R. Mahon, R. Pomeroy.
2007 Challenges Facing Coastal Resource Co-Management in
the Caribbean. In: F. Berkes. Adaptive Co-Management and
Complexity: Exploring the Many Faces of Co-Management. In:
D. Armitage, F. Berkes, N. Doubleday. Adaptive Co-Management.
ubc Press: Vancouver:105-124.
McDaniel, J.
1997 Communal Fisheries Management in the Peruvian Amazon.
Human Organization 56(2):147-152.
McGrath, D.G.
2000 Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons: Recent Developments
in the Management of Amazonian Fisheries. In: A. Hall (Ed.),
Amazonia at the crossroads. Institute of Latin American Studies:
London.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 27
27
29-11-2010 13:52:34
McGrath, D., et al.
1999 Community Management of Floodplain Lakes and the
Sustainable Development of Amazonian Fisheries. In:
C. Padoch, J.M. Ayres, M.P. Vasquez, A. Henderson. (Org.).
Varzea: Diversity, Development, and Conservation of Amazonia’s
Whitewater Floodplains. New York: The New York Botanical
Garden Press:59-82.
McGrath, D., et al.
1993 Fisheries and the Evolution of Resource Management on the
Lower Amazon Floodplain. Human Ecology 21:167-195.
McGrath, D., et al.
2008 Constructing a Policy and Institutional Framework for an
Ecosystem-Based Approach to Managing the Lower Amazon
floodplain. Environment Development, and Sustainability
10(5):677-695.
Oliveira, L.E, P.F. Lopes and A Begossi
2010
A percepção da conservação na Baía da Ilha Grande. In Ecologia
de Pescadores da Baía de Ilha Grande. Editora Rima, São Carlos.
pp 235-292.
Orlove, B.S.
1991 Mapping Reeds and Reading Maps: the Politics of
Representation in Lake Titicaca. American Ethnologist 18(1):3-38.
Padoch, C., et al.
1999 Várzea: Diversity, Development, and Conservation of
Amazonia’s Whitewater Floodplains. New York: The New York
Botanical Garden Press:247-263.
Pauly, D.
1995 Anectodes and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome of the Fisheries.
Tree 10 (10): 430.
Pauly, D., et al.
1998 Fishing-Down Marine Food Webs. Science 279:860.
Petrere, Jr.
1989 River Fisheries in Brazil: a Review. Regulated Rivers and
Management 4:1-16.
Pinedo, D., C. Soria (Eds).
2008 El Manejo de lãs Pesquerias em Rios Tropicales de Sudamérica.
Bogotá. Available: www.idrc.ca/en/
Pinnegar, J.K., G.H. Engelhard.
2007 The ‘Shifting Baseline Phenomenon: a global perspective, Rev
Fish Biol Fisheries doi 10.1007/s11160-007-9058-6.
Pinkerton, E., L. John.
2008 Creating Local Management Legitimacy. Marine Policy 32:680691.
28
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 28
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Pollnac, R.B. (Ed.)
1977 Panamanian small-scale fishermen: society, culture and change.
Marine Technical Report 44. International Center for Marine
Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
Pollnac, R.B., J.J. Poggie.
1991 Psychocultural Adaptation and Development Policy for
Small-Scale Fishermen’s Cooperatives in Ecuador. Human
Organization 50(1):43-49.
Pomeroy C.
2003 Co-Management and Marine Reserves in Fishery Management.
In: D.C. Wilson, J.R. Nielsen, P. Degnbol, (Eds.), The fisheries
co-management experience: accomplishments, challenges, and
prospects. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands:213-229
Queiroz H.L.
2005 A Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá. Estudos
Avançados 19 (54):183-202.
Rojas, B.L.B.
2009 Contrastes entre o Manejo Pesqueiro na Orinoquia Venezuelana
e na Amazônia Brasileira. Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate
Course in Zoology, unesp, Rio Claro.
Ruddle, K.
2007 Misconceptions outright prejudice. Samudra Report 48.
Ruddle, K., F.R. Hickey.
2008 Accounting for the Mismanagement of Tropical Nearshore
Fisheries. Environment, Development, and Sustainability10 (5):565589.
Ruffino, M.L. (Ed.)
2004 A Pesca e os Recursos Pesqueiros na Amazônia. Pró-Várzea,
Manaus.
Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A.
2007. Challenges in the assessment and management of smallscale fisheries in Latin American and the Caribbean. Fisheries
Research 87:5-16.
scm, cnpq, mct, ipaam.
1996 Mamirauá: Plano de Manejo. Brasília, scm, cnpq, mct. rdsm.
2000. Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá.
Available: www.pop.tefe.rnp.br/reserva/reserva/htm.
seap
2007 Relatório Integrado: Diagnóstico da Pesca Artesanal no Brasil
como Subsídio para o Fortalecimento Institucional da Secretaria
Especial de Aqüicultura e Pesca. Vasconcelos, M., Diegues, A.C.,
Sales, R.R. Available: www.seap/conape/planejamento
Sutinem J.G., R.B. Pollnac (Eds)
1981 Small-scale fisheries in Central America: acquiring information
for decision making. International Center for Marine Resource
Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 29
29
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Seixas, C.
2006 Barriers to Local-level Ecosystem Management and Participator
Management in Brazil. ‘Bridging Scales and Knowledge
Systems’. In: W.V. Reid, F. Berkes, T.J. Wildbanks, D., Capistrano
(Eds):255-274.
2004
Instituições e Manejo Pesqueiro: O caso da Lagoa de Ibiraquera,
sc. In: A. Begossi (Org.), A. Leme, C. Seixas, F. de Castro,
J. Pezzuti. N. Hanazaki, N. Peroni, R.A.M. Silvano. 2004.
Ecologia de Pescadores da Mata Atlântica e da Amazônia, Ed.
Hucitec. São Paulo:85-312. Available: www.fisheriesand.food.org/
publicações.
Seixas, C., E. Troutt.
2004 Socio-economic and Ecological Feedbacks in Lagoon Fisheries:
Management Principles for a co-evolutionary setting.
Interciência 29:362-367.
Seixas, C., P. Chamy, A. Begossi.
2008 Using ‘Resilient Lens’ to Assess Conservation Efforts: the Case
of a Marine Extractive Reserve in Brazil, Paper Presented at the
xvi International Conference of the Society for Human Ecology,
Bellingham, wa, usa. Unpublished.
Silvano, R.A.M.
2004 Pesca Artesanal e Ictiologia. In: A. Begossi (Org.), A. Leme,
C.S. Seixas, F. de Castro, J. Pezzuti, N. Hanazaki, N. Peronie
R.A.M. Silvano. 2004. Ecologia de Pescadores da Mata Atlântica
e da Amazônia. Ed. Hucitec. São Paulo. Available: www.
fisheriesandfood.org:187-222.
Silvano, R.A.M., A. Begossi.
2009 Contributions to Human Ecology to Conciliate People
and Biodiversity with a Focus on Fishing Communities,
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (eolss), Developed by
unesco, eolss Pub.,Oxford, uk. Available: www.eolss.net.
2005 Local Knowledge on a Cosmopolitan Fish. Ethnoecology of
Pomatomus saltatrix (Pomatomidae) in Brazil and Australia.
Fisheries Research 71:43-59.
2002 Ethnoichthyology and Fish Conservation in the Piracicaba River,
Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology 22(2):285-306.
Silvano, R.A.M., P. Maccord, R.V. Lima, A. Begossi.
2006 When Does this Fish Spawn ? Fishermen’s Local Knowledge
of Migration and Reproduction of Brazilian Coastal Fishes.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 76:371-386.
Silvano, R.A.M., M.A. Gasalla, S.P. Souza.
2009 Applications of Fisher´s Local Ecological Knowledge to Better
Understand and Manage Tropical Fisheries. In: P.F. Lopes,
A. Begossi (Eds). Current Trends in Human Ecology. Cambridge
Scholars Pub, Newcastle.
30
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 30
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
29-11-2010 13:52:34
Silvano, R.A.M., et al.
2008 Contributions of Ethnobiology to the Conservation of Tropical
Rivers and Streams. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
ecosystems 18:241–260.
World Bank
2008 The Sunken Billions, Economics justification for fisheries
reform. Washington, dc.
Zanetell, B.A., B.A. Knuth.
2002 Bribing Biodiversity: Corruption, Participation, and
Community-Based Management in Venezuela. Southern Rural
Sociology 18(2):130-161.
MAST 2010, 9(2): 7-31
VB Mast Vol 9.2_6.indd 31
31
29-11-2010 13:52:34